|
 
If there were a question on this week's ballot asking, "Shall the voters call upon the Vermont government to buy everyone a new car and do it for free?...Yes or No, I would wager that most people would vote Yes. Who wouldn't want a new car if it didn't cost them anything? What if the new car was a Yugo? Remember those? They were crappy cars from Yugoslavia that were all the rage for about a week until they rusted out...
"Wait," you say, "This isn't exactly a 'new' car."
"Sure it is," says the government. "We've been storing these in a big factory since they were manufactured. They are absolutely new!"
"Well," you say, "That's not what I meant when I checked yes."
"That's what you're getting," says the government who then turns its back on you and walks to the office, leaving you alone in the car lot with the keys to a brand new car. Oh, by the way, it wasn't really free either. The government actually made the company you work for pay for it, and the price of the car is going to come out of your salary for the next ten years.
 Welcome to Universal Health Care as proposed by former Lt. Gubernatorial candidate Cheryl Rivers and Vermont Citizens Campaign for Health, the organization that pushed to have the question placed on ballots in 23 towns and cities including Burlington. In Burlington, "support" for the idea drew the most lopsided result at the ballot, 5069 for, 2196 against the resolution. Why is support so great? Take a look at the question:
| Question 8: Shall the voters of the City of Burlington call upon the City Council, Mayor Clavelle, the School Board, the Governor and our State Legislators to support and actively work for the creation of a Universal and Comprehensive Health Insurance System which is publicly financed and accountable to the citizens of Vermont, and which will reduce costs by eliminating most current administrative expenses? Yes or No |
The big surprise is the number of people who voted against the resolution. This ballot question promises everything while giving away nothing. It sounds great. Free Health Care, it's accountable to the citizens of Vermont (that sounds good, though what it means is a little hard to figure out), and it will reduce costs by eliminating administrative expenses. That sounds great! Of course, you had me at Free Health Care ("publicly financed," same thing).
There is just one tiny problem with it.
The Problem
The resolution is a little hard to believe. Everyone will have health care, and it will be less expensive. Huh? How can this be?
The resolution explains that this system will be less expensive because it "will reduce costs by eliminating most current administrative expenses." Here's a real simple question: When has the government ever reduced administrative expenses on anything?
To illustrate the flawed logic backing this resolution, let me provide you with some information put forth by the Vermont Citizens Campaign for Health. They maintain a web page called Myths and Misconceptions About Single-Payer Health Care. In the first question on this page, they refer to an August 2001 study from the Lewin Group. They don't link to that study, so it was a little difficult to find, but as it turns out, it's available on the Vermont State website.
The study does indeed say Universal Health Care could reduce Health Care Costs in Vermont by $118 million or 5% of the current costs (in 2001). The study also says that while companies that currently cover health care in Vermont would see a reduction in health care costs, companies that do not currently cover health care would see an increase of $1,452 per employee (a total of $119.6 million).
And this is the flaw with Universal Health Care. It gives employers no choice whether or not to pay for it. Under this plan, many Vermont businesses would simply collapse because of financial strain.
What They Don't Tell You About the Study
The study further says that over time, this cost will be deflected to the employees of the company through smaller wages (page 97 of the report).
- In the short term, many companies will go bankrupt.
- In the long term, salaries will be reduced.
How is this a better system for Vermonters? While Health Care is brought down a potential 5% on average, we are looking at crippling our state financially in the arenas of business and our personal salaries. What we must remember is the impact this proposed plan would have outside the realm of the health care system meaning less jobs for the state overall and less pay for those jobs. Health care is not a closed system.
It is interesting to note that the study's purpose is to present the state with a direction for health care. They do not recommend Universal Health Care in their recommendation. Instead, they recommend holding on to the current system, promoting services like Dr. Dynasaur, and expanding health care as the state's financial capacity allows.
Politics at Work?
Because of an article I read in the Barre Times-Argus, I attended a public forum at Burlington's City Hall sponsored by Vermont Citizens Campaign for Health. I was shocked to find that only nine people showed up for the forum, not exactly a hot issue. Yet the press is jumping all over this issue, giving Rivers and Vermont Citizens Campaign for Health unprecedented coverage with absolutely no opposing views. You can hardly make it through a day without seeing the familiar hat-wearing ex-senator in a newspaper.
Before the press has brainwashed the entire state, lets look at the facts, do some research and see what the actual consequences are, rather than seeing only what someone's political agenda wants us to see. Here are the resources:
If you know of any other resources that may be helpful to this issue, please let me know and I will add them to this list.
|
Ms. Rivers might point out that one day isn't bad for an oil change. There are people today that even CHOOSE to wait a week to get an oil change. While we might choose to wait, we all can go to an Oil'n'Go or Jiffy Lube and get an oil change in 30 minutes while you wait for only $30, and they'll throw in a 20 point inspection for free.
The operative word is choose, and we need a lot more choice when it comes to health care. The left is on the right track supporting free markets in prescription drugs so that we can buy drugs from anywhere in the world. If they want to fix health care, so that we won't lose businesses or reduce salaries for employees then the left needs to embrace the same choice they are supporting for prescription drugs and push to allow Vermonters to reimport health insurance from other states.
We hear a lot of reports about saving 50% on prescription drugs, but we could save 50% on health insurance if we were allowed to buy insurance from Atenna in AZ.
There's even more we can do. The Lewin reports says the government overhead is about 3% or so, but doctors in the northwest (WA, OR) are finding that they still can't make enough money to stay in business by dealing with government insurance (medicaid and medicare), so they started up a program called SimpleCare. They only take cash. They charge their customers about half what they were charging when they were taking insurance. And, the doctors are no longer operating at a loss.
Getting back to your great Yugo example, we should apply that to insurance also. You don't buy insurance for your Yugo to change the oil. A regular visit to the car doctor for a 30 minute checkup is less than $30 so you pay cash out of pocket. What you have auto-health insurance for is the same reason you should have personal-health insurance for - major accidents. Instead of the health insurance policy that pays someone to brush your teeth for you, we should be looking for the high deductible plans that cover major medical expenses.
This coupled with making all medical expenses tax deductible for self- employed persons like corporations have then the majority uninsured people will be able to afford health insurance with out any government help. And, many of the people that we've forced into taking government health care will be able to pull themselves up and become self sufficient once again.
The job of government should be to make as many people as possible not dependent on them.
Hardy Machia
http://www.freevermont.org